Jump to content
kevinjohnsonmbe

Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

Recommended Posts

Paul, @AA Teccie (Paul)

 

Can this article be translated into a couple of sentences for simple folk rather than pages of script which left me no clearer on what / when a change might be imposed?  

 

Is it saying that HSE require climbing arbs to use 2 separate ropes rather than the 2 ends of the same rope (for those that still dwell in the 19th century?) 

 

If so, when is this likely to be implemented?  Are we non-compliant now?  Is the training non-compliant?  

 

I have to admit, after reading it, I wasn't really any clearer on whether a change is imminent now, in the near future or maybe not at all.

 

Love & peace,

 

Confused of Cornwall..

 

 

WWW.TREES.ORG.UK

A range of tree related help and advice for members of the public as well as tree surgeons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies all, there's much background tbh and my colleague Simon, who wrote the article, tried to cover all bases.

In a nutshell the HSE would expect to see 2x independent lines, and independent anchors, such that one system can act as a robust backup in the event of the other being damaged or becoming detached and the climber falling. 

In terms of timescales this is not gonna happen overnight and, in all honesty, nothing is likely to 'start to' change until the industry code of practice (ICoP) is amended and 'Technical Guide 1 - Tree Ascent and Descent' is released. As you rightly mention training, and assessment, will have to change to and existing operators will have to change their MO to comply with the law (effectively.) In his article Simon likened this to the industry's equivalent to seat belts being intro'd. so gonna be years rather than months.

Does this help clarify things...a little?

Thanks for asking Kevin and I hope you;re well

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already use two tie ins, nothing knew, just idiots with no real knowledge of our work sticking their oar in.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Apologies all, there's much background tbh and my colleague Simon, who wrote the article, tried to cover all bases.

In a nutshell the HSE would expect to see 2x independent lines, and independent anchors, such that one system can act as a robust backup in the event of the other being damaged or becoming detached and the climber falling. 

In terms of timescales this is not gonna happen overnight and, in all honesty, nothing is likely to 'start to' change until the industry code of practice (ICoP) is amended and 'Technical Guide 1 - Tree Ascent and Descent' is released. As you rightly mention training, and assessment, will have to change to and existing operators will have to change their MO to comply with the law (effectively.) In his article Simon likened this to the industry's equivalent to seat belts being intro'd. so gonna be years rather than months.

Does this help clarify things...a little?

Thanks for asking Kevin and I hope you;re well

Paul

Oh dear............

 

And this IMHO, is why the AA will never have any real relevance within the industry. (walks away shaking head)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the HSEhave had very detailed demonstrations by the industry prior to making a decision about what systems are acceptable / compliant and what aren't.

Effectively, when working, you will still require to have an additional 'tie in', i.e. a 3rd connection...thats gonna be hard to stomach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks, then in reality (and I know you mentioned it earlier) there will be three points of attachment a lot of the time.

 

Were the AA consulted about this and did the AA go along with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for Sunday reply Paul!  Didn't expect such a speedy pick up 👍🏻

 

The point I couldn't untangle was - Does ‘two separate and independently anchored lines’ actually translate to 2 separate and independent ropes or (as we are familiar) both ends of the same rope used to achieve 2 anchor points.  

 

It reads like 2 separate ropes and that gave the obvious rise to the question, if it is 2 separate ropes, have we all been non-compliant since 'the legal requirement goes back to 2003.'

 

I'm just thinking about the present (for the present), if it becomes 3 later - so be it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.